The insured’s 19-year-old girlfriend was not considered an unnamed insured despite the fact that she was a member of the insured’s household. The definition of insured under the policy, which included any person under 21 “in the care of” the named insured, was never meant to capture a typical live-in romantic relationship.

Summary trial application by the insurer for an order that the bank's claim under a standard mortgage clause be dismissed because the bank failed to comply with the applicable limitation period. The court dismissed the insurer's application and granted leave to bring a further summary trial application after there had been document production and examinations for discovery. The court found that evidence on why the insurer did not pay the bank was required in order to make a determination of the issues.

At appeal, the court upheld the trial judge’s decision that a tenant’s insertion of cardboard into furnace controls which caused the furnace to run continually until failure, did not fall within the mechanical breakdown or pollution exclusion under the insured landlord’s all-risk insurance policy. The court also upheld the lower court’s decision that the letter from the adjuster advising no proof of loss was required constituted waiver of the insured’s requirement to file the proof of loss.

Reasonable preventative measures taken by an insured to prevent probable future damages may not be recoverable where the policy excludes coverage for any defect or fault in material or design. This was the case even where an insured loss occurred in an identical piece of machinery as a result of the same defect for which the insured then took preventative steps. The insured’s costs to repair and business losses were a result of its own precautionary measures, and not an accidental or fortuitous event.

Where an insurer refuses to make payment under a policy, the limitation period runs from the date the claimant first knew, or in the circumstances ought to have known, that the insurer refused to make payment under a contract of insurance, rather than from the date of the loss. The insured’s claim is not against the person responsible for the original loss, but against the insurer who is alleged to have breached the contract of insurance by wrongfully denying payment.

A plaintiff’s covenant to insure the defendant signifies the assumption of risk of damage for which it sues. This covenant barred the plaintiff’s insurer from bringing a subrogated claim against the covenantee defendant for the damage. Notwithstanding a lack of contractual privity, the covenant also barred the plaintiff from bringing a subrogated claim against the other defendants on the basis that the plaintiff's claim was derivative of the same incident and the same damage as the claim against the covenantee.